CODEX
The 7 Propaganda Techniques And How They Sucker Web Developers.
Near as can be told the “Seven Classical Propaganda Techniques” were first codified in an uncredited article in the second issue of “Propaganda Analysis” from 1937. This was just a small bulletin/newsletter of the — at that time newly founded — Institute for Propaganda Analysis. (IPA).
In the decades since it has had a profound effect in both how propaganda is used, and in recognizing both the evils and good of it. One of the core aspects of these techniques is that they can overlap and blend in ways that quite simply bypasses rational thought. They make you feel, instead of think. Whilst their being formalized didn’t happen until the 1930’s, they were all relatively well known and used by religions, politics, and any other group trying to promote views that were… how to put this politely? Viewpoints that were more fiction than fact.
Now, don’t get me wrong, propaganda can be used for good. In and of itself there is no evil or wrong to it. However, it is rooted in dishonesty and trying to manipulate you into believing something that generally is devoid of actual merit; much less fact. You have to look at the reason they are being dishonest with you and pause to think.
Once you understand these techniques it can be a bit of a life changer, you’ll start to see them everywhere. If you’ve ever seen the movie “They Live” it’s a bit like putting on the Hoffman lenses. The messages are hidden in plain sight, and you’ve spent most of your life not ignoring them, but blindly letting them control how you think and what you do.
In general you’ll see one or two of these techniques used almost out of habit. That’s not an indicator you’re being lied to, but it does call what’s being peddled to you into question. However, if you see at least six of these in use all at once, you can bet your sweet bippy it is being done intentionally. When it’s intentional, it’s most always to make sure you don’t actually think about what’s actually being said. It’s what in professional wrestling is known as “cheap heat”. Again, make you feel, not think!
Because these techniques are so effective, they are oft used to promote junk tools, junk techniques, and junk like “frameworks”. They are used to promote lies, and bait people into acting before they think, making bad decisions that result in high technical debt. Worse, because they were suckered by the propaganda, they honest to Joe believe that by writing more code, more complex code, and hiding the basic logic of what’s happening, that somehow — magically — it’s all “easier”, or “simpler”, or “better for collaboration”. BALD FACED LIES accepted as fact, because these people don’t know any better so they bit off the propaganda hook, line, sinker, and a bit o’ the rod! Worse, they blindly parrot it to anyone in earshot or against anyone who “dares” question it; much less have the gall to speak out against their beloved media darling scam.
So what are these seven techniques and how is it related to web developers getting “suckered” by them? Well, here they are in the order I was taught them back when they still taught this stuff in grade school in the ‘70’s. This order is based on how they relate — or do not relate — to each-other.
#1 : Testimonial
I used to just follow the crowd, blindly believing everything until I read Jason’s breakdown of the propaganda techniques. Now I see them everywhere! — Some Random Nobody
We are by nature social animals, as such when someone else speaks well of something we tend to listen in. We generally want to believe someone isn’t lying, and if they had success we can too. The sad part is most testimonial is manufactured — either outright as fiction or indirectly through friendly prodding — or created via “survivorship bias”. It is in general — as any lawyer will tell you — rarely based in fact or reality. It is a matter of perception, not fact.
You see testimonial sections on websites all the time. When it comes to tools like frameworks they’re oft even more prevalent. I actually have to give a giant tip of the hat to Tailwind’s homepage (as of 2021) for incorporating a testimonial into their animated example code. Bypass rational thought, in a card stacking (see below) sample of how it works, with an attention drawing animation. If that wasn’t intentional, they’ve got mad-excellent instincts when it comes to mental manipulation. I know a few political propagandists who would stand in rock-star awe of that!
As with all of these techniques, they are used to “make you feel good” about it, even if it’s all a bald faced lie. They don’t want you to think about “well we’re using classes to replicate everything that was wrong with web development and HTML in 1997” so they start the slow process of bypassing your ability to think. That’s why you see it in nearly every scam: From late night informercials to web development frameworks.
And quite often it goes hand in hand with our next technique:
#2 : Plain Folks
I’m a developer just like you. I had the same problems you did. We’re the same you and I.
The whole idea is to be “relatable”. To ingratiate oneself. This too plays to the mental failings of the social animal. We’re hardwired to believe people we like or “our peers”; even when they lie straight to our faces.
It’s much akin to an old New England joke about how here we’ll insult you to your face, pick apart every choice you’ve ever made, and then give you the shirt off our backs… as opposed to the “Deep South” where everyone greets you with fake plastered on smiles, shower you with platitudes, then send you on your way empty handed with little more than “thoughts and prayers”. Or as we call it up here, “mental masturbation covering for impotence”.
As any used car salesman can tell you, a fake geniality can sucker nubes and rubes alike.
Authority : The Polar Opposite
You would think the opposite would be ineffective, but it’s actually a valid technique for some — but not all — audiences. It is to this end that it is often grouped with “Plain Folks” despite being a full 180.
“Speaking from authority”, also sometimes called “manipulative credential”, makes people think you know what you’re talking about because of your credentials. “9 out of 10 doctors approve”, “The latest statistics from the FDA”, “He worked for Twitter when he made this!”
It is not considered a valid technique because it so often backfires. It CAN work with the right audience, but with the wrong audience it goes bits-up face-down. In particular if you have a particularly dim audience that is too low-brow and wallowing in ignorance, and your message is the opposite of a strongly held belief, they can react negatively. Actually, “negatively” is a decidedly weak word for it. In some cases “violently” might even be appropriate!
You can see this right now with how with American anti-masker whackjobs are trying to paint Fauci and the WHO as pawns of Satan, as they bitch about “rights” they don’t even understand whilst holding their super-spreader events.
If your audience has an anti-intellectual bent, they will riot losing their minds if you try to speak to them with authority, much less any fact that contradicts their preconceived notions. To use authority on such an audience, you have to play the demagogue pandering to their beliefs.
As much of an illiterate baboon the orange cheeto-fingered half-tweet is, Donald Trump is a certified MASTER at this; the proverbial idiot savant. Pandering to each small audience and the ugliest parts of their nature. His picture should be next to the word “demagogue” in the flipping dictionary! It has been decades since anyone has even come close to his level of proficiency at this.
To that end speaking with authority only works on a small and narrow audience; hence “Plain Folks” is always the safer bet when you’re not 100% sure of the audience’s temperament and established knowledge.
The laugh is that when it comes to web development, “authority” is often used but not by the people promoting scams, but by those defending them. See how things like bootstrap are defended by the fact that “It was made for and used by Twitter”. That doesn’t mean it’s not ignorant, incompetent, inept crap!
Which brings us to one of the most insidious of the techniques:
#3 : Bandwagon
Everyone is using it. The industry is moving this direction and if you don’t follow, you’ll be left behind. I’m a Pepper, she’s a Pepper, wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too?
Again, the social animal in action. We are all hardwired to want to belong, to be part of the group. Even the anti-social who would claim otherwise have this need, but are incapable of acting upon it for other reasons; thus leading to clinical depression.
This innate need to “belong” is so ridiculously easy to use to manipulate people, and it’s the driving force behind things like “peer pressure” and “mob mentality”. When someone wants to be “part of the group” they’ll often do things they’d never otherwise do. It’s also why many groups use the threat of expulsion to keep people putting the group ahead of self, much less decency, morality, honesty, or any other actual virtue. Look no further than the religious threat of “excommunication” to see that in action.
And I said it right there in the example how it works with web development. Even if the subject being advocated is dragging practices back two decades or more to the worst of browser wars era code — bootstrap, tailwind, w3.css, etc, etc — people will say “these frameworks are where the industry is headed” as if that justifies undoing 20+ years of progress.
It’s one of the biggest mental hurdles many people fail to jump over, breaking their shins in the process. Popular does not automatically equate right, proper, just, or good. In fact, a lot of outright evils in history — religion, racism, the Ice Capades — were and in some cases remain extremely popular. That’s no reason to believe in, support, or try to convince others to follow them.
Just because Billie Eilish has a sob story and the record labels have dropped billions into advertising, that doesn’t mean her incoherent mumbling and total lack of musicianship deserved a freaking Grammy. Where’s Floor Jansen’s freaking Grammy?!?
In that exact same way, just because these garbage web development frameworks are popular, that doesn’t mean they’re any good or that there’s any truth in how “great” they are. In fact, a subsection of “Bandwagon” comes into play with web development:
Echo Chambers
This too draws comparison to the religious idea of “excommunication”. Not only does bandwagon help form echo chambers of like minded head bobbers, the need to maintain “order” and “belief” requires that any dissenters be weeded out, so their asking of questions doesn’t call the message into question. For web development you can see this on various forums, discussion groups, and social media. Anyone who dares speak out against the status quo runs the risk of banning. Sure, the moderators or others in charge will come up with lame excuses about “how it was said”, but most of the time when people go there it’s because they don’t have a REAL reason and actually are greatly upset by the message.
The end result is so many places — DEV, HashNode, SitePoint, etc — being filled with nothing but suck-ups and sycophants. ANY dissention is stamped out with an iron fist. Because the staff are unquestioning fanboys of whatever pet “flavor of the week” framework is hot and trendy. Because any dissension against the mob mentality is viewed as personal attacks. Because the message that something is broken, or wrong, or Joe forbid immoral is simply something they don’t want to hear.
As evidenced by my having been banned from a site once for simply saying:
You used tiny fixed (pixel) metric fonts with illegible colour contrasts, mated to a layout with inconsistent style that makes the content hard to follow. Keyboard navigation is utterly banjaxed thanks to a mix of client-side scripting for things that are none of JavaScript’s business, and a gibberish markup devoid of semantics. In particular the improper use of numbered headings and
tags for scripted hooks that should be
When a post like that is a permaban offense? They’re not interested in people voicing legitimate concerns, giving proper reviews, instructing people in how to do better, etc. They’re trying to keep the bandwagon going via maintaining a uniform message. The only reason to do that, is to maintain the echo chamber of like minded head-bobbing “yes men”.
#4 : Glittering Generalities
This framework is so much easier. It’s better for collaboration. It’s just simpler to work with. It would have taken so much more time without it.
It’s very easy to SAY these things. It’s very easy to trick people who don’t know any better into thinking it’s true. That doesn’t actually MAKE it true.
There are a lot of statements that you can say, and sound good, and people like, that are 100% grade A bunko. But because it sounds good, and people want it to be true, they believe the lie. The “Glittering Generality” always plays to how certain words play with our minds. We like “easier”, or “better”, and as such when someone in plain folks guise does a testimonial laden with glittering generalities, most people are ready to hop on that bandwagon!
If you’ve ever heard “If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is”, that’s exactly what glittering generalities exists to exploit. The million dollar trick when something is so vague and general is to ask “how”, and then follow it up with something like “How is it easier than this”. If they respond with “it just is”, or “I said so”, or worse “so and so said so” it’s probably an unfounded claim they blindly believed because they heard it so many times.
Hence this is also the province of “The Big Lie”:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels
Which you can also see plays well with bandwagon’s “echo chambers”. To make people accept a lie as a truth, you need to stamp out dissent.
We see this in web development all the time. Certain tools / frameworks and the fans of them making wild unfounded clams where — in most cases if you understand the underlying languages — it’s painfully apparent how the claims of being “easier”, or “better”, or “simpler” are 100% grade A farm fresh prairie pies!
More code is not easier. More to learn on top of the base language is not easier. Ten times the code with more to learn that violates good practices is NOT “better for collaboration”. Regardless of how many times the mob repeats those lies!
You’ll notice certain words are often used, bringing us to “Glittering Generalities” most important sub-category:
Loaded Words
Certain words just evoke an emotional response; good or bad. Simpler, easier, better all being examples of the positive. Sadly thanks to what’s known as the “inverse principle” the same words can be used as a negative, by implying the alternative is “bad”.
You can see this most often in food marketing. You’ll see in big bold letters “50% More For the Dollar”, “30% LESS Fat”, or “Better Taste”… and then you have to hunt around in the fine print to find “compared to our own previous brand”. They hide that detail so you think they mean compared to their competitors.
Making a nice segue into:
#5 : Name Calling
Whilst you might think name calling is easy to recognize, in propaganda the type of crass, direct, in your face name calling we’re all familiar with only plays a minor role. Indeed, such directness can backfire just as “authority’ can, and should only be practiced when attempting demagoguery on an already entrapped, entranced, and enthralled audience.
No, propaganda “name calling” tends to be far more subtle. See the “loaded words” above. If you say that your product is “simpler”, or “easier’, you are implying the alternatives are “complex” or “hard”. Quite often this is untrue, but it’s part of the assertion that helps brainwash folks into drinking the tainted flavor-aid.
There are also “loaded words” for name-calling you can use that shouldn’t be insults, but they are.
A great one is “you’re just an idealist”. What’s wrong with having ideals? Ambitions? It’s attacking someone for something we should all strive for. Goes hand in hand with calling someone a “dreamer”… and those are some of the nicer words.
“Liberal” is another. A word quite literally meaning “Open to new ideas”. Those of you out there attacking people for being “Libtards” are quite literally saying you prefer a closed mind stuck in the past. Comic tragedy when the same people then accuse others of being closed minded for their negative reactions to narrow-minded racist bigotry.
With web development it’s commonplace in — again — dismantling dissention. You’ll see people say “You’re stuck in the ‘90’s” as a kneejerk reaction, more comic tragedy when most of the people saying it were in diapers at the time, and are attacking those who are objecting to certain newer ideas because it recreates mistakes of the past. It’s a lame excuse and strawman argument; as if everything from the past is some sort of evil to be avoided. Some’s good, some’s bad. Learn the difference!
Just like claiming how those who disagree with the status quo “Don’t work real jobs”, or “Never worked on a large project”, when YOU DON’T FREAKING KNOW THAT! And again runs head-on into glittering generalities when the people saying these things are defending outdated, outmoded, bad practices (aka “frameworks”) that just make working real jobs and working on large projects harder!
Such ad-hominem attacks against disparate viewpoints being the heart of the negate of “plain folks” known as “Dismissal”. It uses “plain folks” to try and dismiss a valid counterpoint because they have no other defense. Strange as it is, outright dismissing a counterpoint because of who said it is one of the most common methods of both card stacking and plain folks. It stops being about “truth”, “right”, or “correct”, and instead focuses on winning at all costs, right or wrong.
Such arguments are like the “proud” immoral indecent all-American tradition of “Blame the victim”… where if a poor person is poor it’s because of their bad choices. Or those with pre-existing conditions are “genetically weak” and should be “culled” or are “disposable” in the face of a pandemic.
It’s all bullshit those living in fear tell themselves to avoid facing the simple truth that it could be any one of us at any moment. The vast majority of people are one bad day away from the rest of their life being a disaster. We are all 9 square meals away from becoming monsters. These are hard harsh truths most are unwilling to face, so we bullshit.
Which sees its pinnacle in our society with the dirtbag legal system : Where if an unconscious woman is double fisted to the point of bleeding, it’s her fault. After all, we can’t ruin the life of a college sports star for “20 minutes of action”. We certainly can’t call him a rapist given that by California’s legal definition it’s not rape — even when it’s the DICTIONARY DEFINITION! That’s an actual thing; those defending this sleazy waste of flesh are saying we can’t call Brock Turner a rapist because he was convicted not of rape, but of felony sexual assault with a body part. You know… RAPE!
And then people wonder why I have such disgust for my fellow man…
It is literally the response of those who can’t find a valid factual way of disproving the message, so they attack the messenger. It is the most common response to anyone voicing genuine criticism that “dares” to conflict with the established “party message” or whatever motivation all the lemmings have for running off the cliff.
Even so, name calling is oft justified; one of the few ways to truly express just how sleazy something or someone is. Much like profanity, it expresses an emotional response. To this end those who complain about profanity, harsh language, and “negative” criticism most are at best enablers, at worst can be counted amongst the sleazy dirtbag predators.
The entire notion of “unity at any cost” being nothing more than toxic positivity and a manipulative “Do as we say, not as we do!”.
Thus name calling can often be based in fact, but it’s also possible to lie using facts! There’s an old saying:
“The best place to hide a lie is between two facts”
Bringing us conveniently to:
#6 : Card Stacking
To put this as simply as possible, this is presenting facts that support the argument, whilst omitting any and all facts that contradict it. It is quite literally using facts to lie. The “lie of omission”.
Most commonly card stacking is used for making false assertions. Religion uses this a good deal. Take the dumbass notion that “2.2 billion Christians can’t be wrong!”… ignoring the other 5 billion plus people on the planet who think Christianity can sod right off.
We see this on websites for development tools a lot in how they will show how their system works saying “how easy it is”, without showing a well written alternative. This is equally found in examples that are so poorly written one can only conclude the people writing them aren’t qualified to do a damned thing without the framework. It’s a very easy way to prey on those devoid of knowledge on a topic, convincing them that your “glittering generalities”, “testimonials”, and “bandwagon” based assertions are true. You simply omit the mountain of facts that make it all look stupid and ignorant, and present front and center the handful of corner cases it can LOOK advantageous… even when it isn’t.
Wherefore card-stacking’s most important sub-category:
False Simplicity
This boils down to simplifying things so much, that it can no longer accomplish the task easily if at all. It qualifies as card stacking because those who fall for it bullshit themselves because it LOOKS “easier”. They put simplicity so far up on the stack, that anything which contradicts it being simple is ignored. I’m not sure I’m wording this part correctly. It’s VERY complicated how “false simplicity” is actually a form of “card stacking”.
In web development we see frameworks do this a whole lot, as do many “simpler” systems like the “non-database driven” stuff. It LOOKS simpler, it can even feel simpler at the start, but that ALLEGED simplicity comes at a cost! Long term technical debt, or an inability to even accomplish the end goal. You card-stack yourself with the “simplicity” and it leaves you flat on your ass the moment any task that isn’t so “simple” comes along.
A situation made worse by how diving for what appears simpler oft makes the developers who do so utterly unqualified to fix or maintain what they’ve built.
It’s even more common amongst the artists under the DELUSION that they’re “web designers”, whilst not knowing enough about HTML, CSS, accessibility, user-experience, to be “designing” but two things…and Jack left town. Take the over-use of iconography, or the raging boner they have for trying to use placeholder or behaviors like it to do
The sad part is, the mental failing that makes people so easily swayed by card stacking creates another mental failing: confirmation bias. Because you got a “result”, ANY RESULT, you start to think you weren’t lied to. It leaves you unaware of how you’ve basically screwed yourself or your clients, and wondering why you’ve got low traffic numbers, large numbers of complaints, or calling someone like me to help fix how you’re in court for accessibility failings.
Dragging us to something that is a direct result of card-stacking, oft mated to testimonial and authority:
Self Blame
There were all these facts that said it worked; all these people saying how great it is; it’s used by big names in the industry; everyone is using it! Thus if it didn’t work for you, it must magically be your fault. If it didn’t work for someone else, it must be their fault. Again, blame the victim. The mere notion that the tool, how it was documented, or the very nature by which it works is at fault becomes utterly unacceptable. Why? Because the propaganda you swallowed said so! It’s so difficult a thing to accept, those telling you what went wrong might as well be speaking Klingon. Hence why this too is a common “defense” put forth as part of the “wah wah, is not” response one finds when you DARE to blame the media darling frameworks and their broken mindsets.
This narrative is worked into most every defense of the junk tools, frameworks, and techniques we hear endlessly praised by people not qualified to write a single blasted line of HTML or CSS. Worse, most of the time their “answer” to any problem is to just throw more code at it — most of that blind copypasta — crossing one’s fingers and hoping that it fixes things. Chewing gum, and bailing wire are NOT permanent fixes. Just because you can drive a screw with a hammer, doesn’t mean it’s going to hold for very long. When the entire methodology was flawed, band aid fixes typically do more harm than good and only incur more debt in the long term.
And make no mistake, “self blame” is an aspect of card stacking. In point of fact it is why card stacking is continued to be pushed in scams even after people are hooked. That way when people are failing you can say “It will work if you give it one more chance!” (aka give us more money). This is how pyramid scams like Mary Kay or Amway bleed people dry, continuing to milk their wallets even as it’s painfully apparent how badly they’re failing.
The same way many web devs will double-down on bad choices despite looming disaster. Some of it is that they just don’t know enough to recognize the log they’ve been bent over, more of it is the card stacked “truths” screaming at them to “squeal like a pig boy!”
#7 : Transfer
You understand React? Then you’ll pick up Svelte in no time! Tailwind is just like Bootstrap, just with more options!
In many ways transfer is the odd man out. Its closest relative in the other techniques is “Glittering Generalities”, but even that is a very loose association.
In many ways it’s like a simile. (And NO nose-breathers, I did not just misspell “smilie”). A simple comparison of something people already like or are familiar with, trying to “transfer” over established feelings. It is a way to disarm the natural defense provided by “critical thinking” because you’re introducing the concept in the context of things already understood.
Similes, transfer, relation, and so forth are valid teaching techniques that help people learn faster, by comparing to something the learner already knows. It bypasses many of the thought processes common to learning something new, and can even help those with severe learning deficits quickly pick up complex ideas.
Where it goes from learning technique to propaganda is quite simple. Intent: Is it actually teaching you something new, or is it trying to convince you of something without teaching you anything?
Intent is the determining factor of if any of these propaganda techniques are being used in a sinister fashion, but nowhere is that more true than in transfer.
The most common example of Transfer goes hand-in-hand with the glittering generality, and comes from the realm of politics. “Vote for Mayor Young, a REAL American”. Clearly a glittering generality, as what is a “real American”. What makes him more of a “real American” than his competition? They were both born here, lived here their whole lives, both pay taxes…
But more so, it’s trying to trigger your patriotism or worse, nationalism. To transfer an American citizen’s love of America to the candidate; warranted or not. It’s the same reason every politician’s website, promotional photo’s, and rally speeches try to work the flag into the background somewhere. It’s not them being patriotic, it’s them trying to manipulate your nationalism. The same way the common idolatry of the flag, the anthem, and the pledge are used to promote a nationalistic fervor that’s devoid of love for the decency, morality, or any other humanistic concept the America is supposed to stand for. Again, feeling instead of thinking. Worship the symbols, and some vague idea of “America”, but not the actual liberties, freedoms, and justice upon which the nation was founded; much less those rights and protections that have been slowly won the past two and a half centuries that have passed since the nation’s founding.
If only there were a book these nationalistic nutters vehemently believed as if it were holy writ, that said something about idolatry. Could put it close to the beginning near a ten step program.
We see the same thing with frameworks and other tools, though to a lesser degree. Again “authority” comes into play. Like “It’s used and created by Twitter” is an attempt to move your love of Twitter — or at least your envy of their success — over to Bootstrap. That’s a form of transfer.
A good rule of thumb is that if they dive for “transfer” before they’ve even tried to teach you anything meaningful, they’re using it as propaganda in a possibly malicious manner. An attempt to move the needle before you even know enough of the topic to form a valid opinion.
One final aspect of transfer that is far too powerful?
Fearmongering
The “Wizard’s First Rule” spells it out.
People are dumb. They will believe a lie because they want it to be true, or because they are afraid it might be true. — Terry Goodkind
It might sound odd, but preying upon fear and ignorance is a form of transfer, as the propagandist is trying to turn your fear of something into a love for them. Typically by attacking it.
It’s why the xenophobic part of America is now on parade. Racists, sexists, deists, and other bigots are having their fears played to, and those who exploit it are irrationally loved by their loyal followers.
We see this in the more fanatical extremists in programming, who foster a “fear of objects” and call them “hard” or “complex” when they were actually created to make things simpler. And they often are! This fear lets them peddle whatever nonsense they support, helping establish their insular communities. Note, not to single out the anti-oop crowd. The anti-functional programming crowd, “if/else/switch/case is evil crowd”, and every other group of pedants out there spewing nonsensical manure are guilty of this.
Hell if it weren’t for fear-mongering paranoid malarkey, 90%+ of what “linters” do could be pitched in the trash.
Conclusion
Whilst none of these techniques are evil in and of themselves they can all be used for nefarious purposes, and typically are. The human mind is a shocking fragile and feeble thing, and many of the important parts of the decision-making process can be bypassed with relatively little effort.
I cannot fault the sites or projects that use these techniques for doing so. It is an essential part of marketing. It is when they are blatantly and obviously lying about alleged “benefits” that I take issue. More so when the false claims and blatant lies are blindly parroted as fact by those who’ve been drawn into the marketing sleaze like moths to a flame.
We can see this with so many of the hot-and-trendy “tools”, and to be brutally frank the propaganda makes up a significant part of why so many developers hop between languages and frameworks with the frequency of a cheap AM radio! So many of you out there do nothing but follow the latest hotness, without giving any consideration as to if it’s actually better, and propaganda is one of the leading factors in this behavior.
As time passes it seems new frameworks double, triple, and quadruple down on the bunko as if it were an arms race, each trying to out-do the other on how much manure can be shoveled in that desperate drive to build up a user-base. Particularly as such layered abstractions end up with less and less actual merit and utility as what came before.
More so as they increase how much they tell “good practices” to go plow themselves because the creators of these systems never embraced such concepts in the first place! They REALLY start to layer it on thick when their functionality is made obsolete by changes to the underlying language itself.
Fighting the mental failings propaganda exploits doesn’t take a lot, hell it was taught back when I was in grade school in the ‘70’s. It stopped being taught by the time I reached junior high, during that ugly and destructive transition where they removed “Civics” in favor of “Social Studies”. It’s hardly a shock since that time we’ve created a populace not only politically illiterate, but so easily swayed by a good bullshit story.
Learn the techniques, recognize them when they are used, then ask yourself does the message and intent ACTUALLY match up. What are they trying to sell you? It’s really sad how much of everything in every aspect of life fails such simple inspection. It’s almost like we have decades of actively promoting narcissistic sociopathy as a virtue. The entire message conservatives have been promoting for four decades being “Do anything to get ahead, no matter how many people you have to trample underfoot to get there.”
To hell with that, and to hell with that type of thinking.
